Iran has recently ramped up it's ability to produce nuclear armament with continued allegations of silo developments in Syria. They have also recently stated that, should the Americas and the UN continue to push forward in sanctions, they (America) will see a reprisal never before seen on earth. The Clintons seem to think this threat is legitimate and the Revolutionary Guard holds considerable power in that country. Almost as a response, the US has also accelerated nuclear production and now seeks to find new ways to dispose of waste. Coupled with an increased Russian-EU front, are these new tensions indicative of a new Cold War? Will we see a Nuclear War in our time?

This post has been edited by Geert Wilders: Feb 17 2010, 04:20 AM

--------------------

QUOTE (Qdeathstar @ Mar 13 2009, 01:45 AM)

The reason is that when heartless says something stupid, he really means it and believes it.

“They refer to me as an uneducated barbarian. Yes, we are barbarians. We want to be barbarians, it is an honored title to us. We shall rejuvenate the world. This world is near its end.”

Nuclear weapons used in our lifetime? Probably but I don't think it will be two countries launching them at eachother it would likely be the U.S or Israel hitting someone with small (in comparrison of what's possible) nukes but the possibilities are endless with Pakistan and India having face offs now and again.Also nuclear dissarmament is false because like any weapon requiring fuel they have a use by date so it's just another way of saying they're throwing away the bad eggs and replacing them with fresh ones.As for a new cold war - it never really ended, there's been more spying going on than ever before in the U.K by Russia and China.

Nuclear weapons used in our lifetime? Probably but I don't think it will be two countries launching them at eachother it would likely be the U.S or Israel hitting someone with small (in comparrison of what's possible) nukes but the possibilities are endless with Pakistan and India having face offs now and again.Also nuclear dissarmament is false because like any weapon requiring fuel they have a use by date so it's just another way of saying they're throwing away the bad eggs and replacing them with fresh ones.As for a new cold war - it never really ended, there's been more spying going on than ever before in the U.K by Russia and China.

Not to play devils advocate, but you forget that the India/Pakistan wars only ended after they each developed nuclear weapons, which ensured peace between the two nations.

I think we'll see some denotation of a small dirty bomb, either in the US or the Arab world in the next ten years.

Also, don't discount China just yet; after WW2 they launched a significant assault against the royals when they knew we were powerless to oppose them. They may see this chance again, with the US wiped out after a war in the Middle East.

--------------------

QUOTE (Qdeathstar @ Mar 13 2009, 01:45 AM)

The reason is that when heartless says something stupid, he really means it and believes it.

“They refer to me as an uneducated barbarian. Yes, we are barbarians. We want to be barbarians, it is an honored title to us. We shall rejuvenate the world. This world is near its end.”

This has just got me wondering; if nuclear war starts (U.K being the target) our subs have a double safe in their bowels that can only be opened in this situation. Inside is a hand written note from Gordon Brown which gives his decision whether to fight back with nukes or not. Only the Prime minister knows (officially) what is written in that note and that word is final. So if we're threatened and we don't see a launch of our own then what does he have in mind instead?

Also, peacetime rules are often broken on the seas between Britain and Russia and these often cause diplomatic confrontations. One trick I know of is British frigates are able to move close enough to photograph Russian navy ships in the darkness by cleverly using lights to disguise themselves as fishing vessels.You sometimes hear about submarines getting damaged mysteriously, nothing mysterious about it - if two subs meet under the ocean they're at war no matter if their countries officially are or not. The only thing about the navy that isn't public is the wherabouts of it's subs so if a confrontation happens below the sea it can always be denied.

We have several "sky fortresses" - what used to be the Hercules models, only re-imagined - that supposedly circulate in the air 24:7. As the rumor goes, they are ordered to unload their payloads on whatever country launched a nuclear missile at the United States. This was created in the event that should the US government not be able to respond, they could at least retaliate.

--------------------

QUOTE (Qdeathstar @ Mar 13 2009, 01:45 AM)

The reason is that when heartless says something stupid, he really means it and believes it.

“They refer to me as an uneducated barbarian. Yes, we are barbarians. We want to be barbarians, it is an honored title to us. We shall rejuvenate the world. This world is near its end.”

I doubt it would ever be condoned by a state. Most likely by separatists/terrorists as the risk of MAD is just too great.

And that's just it! When MAD was developed most countries were pretty solid, whereas the last ten years have seen a growing number of terrorist groups and military dictatorships. The world has never seen such division, at least, without WW1/2 erupting.

--------------------

QUOTE (Qdeathstar @ Mar 13 2009, 01:45 AM)

The reason is that when heartless says something stupid, he really means it and believes it.

“They refer to me as an uneducated barbarian. Yes, we are barbarians. We want to be barbarians, it is an honored title to us. We shall rejuvenate the world. This world is near its end.”

I wouldn't be suprised if nukes where already buried underground in certain countries to be detonated and make it look like a domestic accident. We have weapons stashes in most countries round the world that can be dug up by 'tourists' upon entering a hostile country so why not nukes too?

I doubt it would ever be condoned by a state. Most likely by separatists/terrorists as the risk of MAD is just too great.

And that's just it! When MAD was developed most countries were pretty solid, whereas the last ten years have seen a growing number of terrorist groups and military dictatorships. The world has never seen such division, at least, without WW1/2 erupting.

Interesting point. The tensions are probably the result of a lack of conclusive resolutions of disputes between countries. UN Resolutions don't count, either.

I doubt it would ever be condoned by a state. Most likely by separatists/terrorists as the risk of MAD is just too great.

And that's just it! When MAD was developed most countries were pretty solid, whereas the last ten years have seen a growing number of terrorist groups and military dictatorships. The world has never seen such division, at least, without WW1/2 erupting.

Interesting point. The tensions are probably the result of a lack of conclusive resolutions of disputes between countries. UN Resolutions don't count, either.

There will always be inconclusive disputes between countries. There always has been. India/Pakistan tension is nowhere near North/South Korea who are technically still at war. If there is a nuke attack, that's the first place to look.

I think the nuclear attack would happen due to a fanatic terrorists attack rather than a calculated attack by US or any other. There are other weapons such as cluster bombs for that matter without using nuke. Kim is not that stupid to use a nuke and stop his rule, he knew that by doing so even China will condemn them.

Iran is a different ball game though. I believe US will stop them "by military means" before they get the bomb.

I doubt it would ever be condoned by a state. Most likely by separatists/terrorists as the risk of MAD is just too great.

And that's just it! When MAD was developed most countries were pretty solid, whereas the last ten years have seen a growing number of terrorist groups and military dictatorships. The world has never seen such division, at least, without WW1/2 erupting.

Interesting point. The tensions are probably the result of a lack of conclusive resolutions of disputes between countries. UN Resolutions don't count, either.

I doubt it would ever be condoned by a state. Most likely by separatists/terrorists as the risk of MAD is just too great.

And that's just it! When MAD was developed most countries were pretty solid, whereas the last ten years have seen a growing number of terrorist groups and military dictatorships. The world has never seen such division, at least, without WW1/2 erupting.

Interesting point. The tensions are probably the result of a lack of conclusive resolutions of disputes between countries. UN Resolutions don't count, either.

Even if there are new tensions on the horisont and new Cold War starting I hope they would'nt use those weapons. Using them wont do any good because nobody can win that kind of war. This planet would just turn into a dusty, gritty and lifeless place of black corpses and Terminators. Nope. If I would have to choose between nuclear weapons and terrorism I would choose the second one. I dont think these nukes are the issue and there isn't any clear tensions between nations. The only war is against the insivible enemy: the terrorists. No specific nations.

I doubt it would ever be condoned by a state. Most likely by separatists/terrorists as the risk of MAD is just too great.

And that's just it! When MAD was developed most countries were pretty solid, whereas the last ten years have seen a growing number of terrorist groups and military dictatorships. The world has never seen such division, at least, without WW1/2 erupting.

Interesting point. The tensions are probably the result of a lack of conclusive resolutions of disputes between countries. UN Resolutions don't count, either.

There will always be inconclusive disputes between countries. There always has been. India/Pakistan tension is nowhere near North/South Korea who are technically still at war. If there is a nuke attack, that's the first place to look.

I think the nuclear attack would happen due to a fanatic terrorists attack rather than a calculated attack by US or any other. There are other weapons such as cluster bombs for that matter without using nuke. Kim is not that stupid to use a nuke and stop his rule, he knew that by doing so even China will condemn them.

Iran is a different ball game though. I believe US will stop them "by military means" before they get the bomb.